Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Commission Packet - August 7, 2012CENTRAL POINT CITY OF CENTRAL POINT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA August 7, 2012 - 6:00 p.m. Next Planning Commission Resolution No. 788 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER II. ROLL CALL Planning Commission: Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Tim Schmeusser, Rick Samuelson, Jr., Tom Van Voorhees, Susan Szczesniak, Craig Nelson, Sr. III. CORRESPONDENCE IV. MINUTES Review and approval of July 3, 2012 Planning Commission Minutes V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES VI. BUSINESS Pgs. I - 6 A. Tree Removal Application. Application to remove a Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) located in the public right -of -way at 708 Isherwood Drive in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) Transit Oriented District (TOD). Applicant: Lana Grosenbach Pgs• 7 - 22 B. File No. 5076. Approval of extension and application for the proposed Type III Minor Modification pursuant to § 17.09 of the Central Point Municipal Code. The modification is limited to re- evaluation of the tentative plan for The North Village subdivision as necessary to address CPMC Chapter 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention. The project site is located west of Hwy 99, north of North Haskell Street and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 0313C, Tax Lots 100, 200, 300, 400 and 37 2W 03B, Tax Lots 1601, 1602,1800. Applicant: Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC; Agent: Herb Farber VII. DISCUSSION - East Pine Street Master Plan VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 I. MEETING CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 P.M. II. ROLL CALL Commissioners Chuck Piland, Mike Oliver, Susan Szczesniak, Tim Schmeusser, Tom Van Voorhees and Craig Nelson, Sr. were present. Rick Samuelson, Jr. was absent. Also in attendance were: Tom Humphrey, Community Development Director; Don Burt, Planning Manager; Connie Clune, Community Planner; and Didi Thomas, Planning Secretary. III. CORRESPONDENCE — Chairman Chuck Piland acknowledged receipt of written correspondence from Clyde and June Brock, 2815 Taylor Road, Central Point, OR 97502; Tim and Nancy Higinbotham, 2744 Taylor Road, Central Point, OR 97502; Larry and Sophia Martin, 2673 Taylor Road, Central Point, OR 97502; Adrian Snyder, Trustee, US Bank, Wiedman Marital Trust, 3817 Grant Road, Central Point, OR 97502; Kathy King (Allen), 2850 Taylor Road, Central Point, OR 97502; and Katy and Duane Mallams, 2855 Heritage Road, Central Point, OR 97502; and all letters were entered into the official record. IV. MINUTES Mike Oliver made a motion to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2012 Planning Commission meeting. Craig Nelson, Sr. seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees, yes; Nelson, yes. Motion passed. V. PUBLIC APPEARANCES - None VI. BUSINESS A. File Nos. 09017 and 12015. A public hearing to consider a resolution recommending approval of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, including adoption of a Regional Plan Element as a new element of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, and amendment to the Zoning Ordinance adding Section 17.71 Agricultural Buffering, an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating the Urban Reserve Areas, and approval of an Urban Reserve Management Agreement between Jackson County and the City of Central Point. Applicant: City of Central Point Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 Page 2 Planning Manager Don Burt stated that the Planning Commissioners would be doing a final review of the Regional Plan Element and forwarding a recommendation to the City Council as a result of the public hearing this evening. The Citizens Advisory Committee for the City of Central Point would be meeting next week on July 10, 2012 and would be making a recommendation to the City Council as well. Mr. Burt acknowledged the letters that had been submitted prior to this evening's meeting and said that they would be entered as part of the official record. Mr. Burt then proceeded to present the meeting objectives to include consideration of the Regional Plan Element, adding that each city participating in the Regional Plan would be adding a Regional Plan Element to their comprehensive plans. The Planning Commission would also be looking at a land use plan map amendment showing Urban Reserve areas, an Urban Reserve Management Agreement explaining who manages the Urban Reserve areas before they become part of the City of Central Point, an Agricultural Buffering ordinance so as not to impact agricultural lands, and an Urban Growth Boundary Management Agreement (existing). The proposed Urban Reserve areas, Mr. Burt added, would provide room for 50 years of projected growth. Mr. Burt pointed out that the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan was adopted by Jackson County in November of 2011, following review and acceptance by each of the participating cities. The Plan contains five (5) chapters and Mr. Burt provided a review of each starting with an overview of the Regional Problem Solving process, its challenges, what the Plan is, why it came into being, how it is structured, its core elements, how it was developed and the final steps in the development of the Plan. Regional Growth Planning, Mr. Burt explained, allocates population, reallocates employment growth, land demand, and provides for coordination of planning and transportation as growth occurs in the future. The Regional Plan establishes the Urban Reserve areas and establishes performance indicators, agricultural buffering standards, incentives and disincentives for monitoring and making adjustments. Implementation techniques are also included. The Regional Plan Element incorporates by reference the entirety of the Regional Plan and restates proposed Urban Reserve areas for each participating city along with monitoring and implementation techniques. Mr. Burt presented an introduction to the Regional Plan Element components and reviewed Regional Plan goals and guiding policies. He explained how the Plan would manage future regional growth, conserve resource and open space lands for their economic, cultural and livability benefits, and recognize and emphasize the individual identify, unique features, and relative competitive advantages and disadvantages of each community within the Region. The City of Central Point has eight (8) proposed Urban Reserve areas identified in its Regional Plan Element. Mr. Burt described the location of each of these areas and their proposed land use distributions. Prior to inclusion in the UGB, a master plan will be developed for each of the areas and will show where the different land designations will Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 Page 3 be. Participating cities will be required to comply with conditions on Urban Reserve areas. Additionally, the City and County must agree on how to deal with the Gibbon Acres area prior to taking any land within the Urban Reserve areas into its Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Burt then reviewed performance indicators commencing with adoption of the Regional Plan by Jackson County, incorporation by each of the participating cities, Urban Reserve Management and Urban Growth Boundary Management agreements, commitment of residential densities, creating mixed -use pedestrian friendly areas, conceptual transportation and land use plans, resolving any conditions in the Urban Reserve areas, creating buffers for agricultural lands, land preservation strategies to keep cities from growing into each other, amending our Urban Growth Boundary, creating master plans for reserve areas with land division restrictions, allocation of population, greater coordination with RVMPO for transportation funding strategies, future coordination with the Rogue Valley Council of Governments, determining what to do with the Jackson County Expo and creation of a task force to deal with agricultural buffering. The agricultural buffer standards, Mr. Burt said, will only apply to Urban Reserve areas. Minor changes will be made to the Regional Plan Element before it is reviewed by City Council, Mr. Burt stated, to clarify acronyms, reflect that section 4.1.15 is not applicable to Central Point and completely deleting section 4.3.1. Commissioner Mike Oliver asked if all of the land within the current Urban Growth Boundary needed to be developed prior to expanding into an Urban Reserve area. Mr. Burt pointed out that there needed to be a 20 year supply of land available for development. If there was only a 10 year supply of land available, the City would be able to expand into an Urban Reserve area to make up the difference. Community Development Director Tom Humphrey added that the State of Oregon requires the 20 years of land acreage. A need for land hasn't existed in the last few years with the economic downtown. Once the process is complete and within the next year, it is anticipated that we will have to start adjusting our Urban Growth Boundary. We have approximately seven (7) years worth of land left in our current UGB. Chairman Chuck Piland then opened the public hearing and members of the audience came forward to ask questions and testify for the record: Suzanne Davis, PO Box 3936, questioned whether the boundaries of CP -613 were cast in stone and asked why the City would want to go into that area as it was already developed. Mr. Humphrey explained that although the property was developed, parcels were still on wells and there were no curbs, gutters or sidewalks. By developing Urban Reserve areas, cities' priority to take lands in changes and it is possible that some lands may not be likely to develop in the future. Boundaries are fixed in the Urban Reserve areas, however minor amendments can be made as established in the Regional Plan. Planning will be Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 Page 4 done in each of the areas, Mr. Humphrey explained, to get the densities worked around over a period of time. The conceptual planning process for each area will be done before we would do an Urban Growth Boundary expansion. In response to Ms. Davis's question about what the benefits are for being in an Urban Reserve area, Mr. Humphrey responded that basically it would be the ability of hook up to City water. Mr. Humphrey emphasized that property owners can participate in every step of the process but may never become part of the City. The Plan establishes the general direction of growth in the future. Scott Holt, 3056 Hanley Road, came forward to state that he was never notified by the County and doesn't see any benefit from being part of the City. Mr. Humphrey said that we are setting up a process to correct some of the problems with previous land use decisions by going into larger tax lots and doing some master planning. Lyn McGoffin, 2938 Hanley Road, said that the only notification he received from the County was regarding floodplain issues and nothing else. It was noted that he did receive a notice for this meeting. Bob Hart, a land use planner, came forward and entered a letter into the record stating that he was presenting real property owners in the vicinity of Exit 35 who had been excluded from being in an Urban Reserve area but had entered into an agreement with the City and the County as an area of mutual concern in 2005. Don Burt advised Mr. Hart that there were provisions in the Plan for making modifications. Katy Mallams, 2855 Heritage Road, carne forward and said that the County didn't notify anyone. Mrs. Mallams stated that her letter, previously submitted and already a part of the record, laid out some things that she and her husband felt that the City should change before adopting the Plan and that there should be permanent protection of agricultural lands. She added that small scale farms should be allowed to continue as well. Mary Savage, 7260 Blackwell Road, came forward and questioned whether or not her property on Blackwell Road was protected. She complained that the Planning Commission meeting had been scheduled on the night before the 4th of July holiday. Chairman Chuck Piland advised Mrs. Savage that her property was not located near an affected area and that anyone has the ability to come to City Hall and obtain information. Joann Cernick, 5279 Table Rock Road, came forward to contribute that she had been notified many times and had also been involved in the creation of a master plan for the CP -213 area. Mrs. Cernick asked about the timing of when properties will be added to the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Humphrey answered that once the Regional Plan becomes law, each City will being the process of bringing land into their UGBs. The order in which areas come in could become somewhat competitive he added. The infrastructure required in an Urban Reserve area to make it work would be a consideration. Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 Page S Max Frederick, 5695 Table Rock Road, came forward to state that he was one of the owners of the 50 acre parcel of land lying between Wilson Road and Gibbon Acres and was present tonight to be part of the record. When queried what the property was presently being used for, Mr. Frederick answered cattle and gardening. He just wanted to be sure that the government didn't come and do something with the property without his permission. Gregory Abel, attorney, came forward and stated that he represents property owners in the vicinity of the Seven Oaks Interchange who had signed an agreement for inclusion in the Regional Plan in 1998 and that they had purchased their property based on that agreement. The property owners had donated land to the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) for interchange improvements to Exit 35 in hopes that the Highway 140 plan would benefit their property. Mr. Abel asked the Planning Commission to not forward their recommendation to the City Council without considering the inclusion of these properties. Mr. Humphrey said that the properties in question were in an area of mutual planning concern and the signed agreement was still in effect. Some properties, including the property in question, were removed from potential Urban Reserve areas during the review of the final Urban Reserves areas and have been out of future projections for more than five years. Early drafts of the Regional Plan did include this property. Suzanne Davis came back to the podium to ask that the Commissioners not approve a resolution this evening but to delay their decision until after the holiday to allow people to appeal some of the boundaries. Don Burt stated that the Urban Reserve areas had already been adopted by the Jackson County Board of Commissioners. Participating cities are charged with adoption of their Regional Plan Elements which is the subject of the meeting this evening. Minor amendments, he said, could start sooner than five years. The public portion of the hearing was then closed. Commissioner Tom Van Voorhees felt that a lot of people were frustrated with this process. Tom Humphrey said that we are trying to get this matter in front of the Land Conservation and Development Commission in November and therefore the City Council has to be done with this in August. Mr. Humphrey's advice to Commissioners was that they acknowledge that the County has adopted the Regional Plan, adopt the Regional Plan Element, get this to the State and then proceed with a process to make changes. Craig Nelson, Sr. made a motion to approve Resolution 787 recommending adoption of the Greater Bear Creek Valley Regional Plan, including adoption of a Regional Plan Element as a new element of the City of Central Point Comprehensive Plan, an Amendment to the land Development Ordinance sections 17.71 Agricultural Buffering, an amendment to the official Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map designating the Urban Reserve Areas, and approval of an Urban Reserve Planning Commission Minutes July 3, 2012 Page 6 Management Agreement between Jackson County and the City of Central Point. Susan Szczesniak seconded the motion. ROLL CALL: Oliver, yes; Szczesniak, yes; Schmeusser, yes; Van Voorhees, no; and Nelson, yes. Motion carried. Commission Chairman Chuck Piland informed members of the audience that the Citizens Advisory Committee would be conducting a public hearing on Tuesday, July 10, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. with City Council to hear the matter on Thursday, July 26, 2012, at 7:00 p.m. VII. DISCUSSION VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEWS — None IX. MISCELLANEOUS X. ADJOURNMENT Tom Van Voorhees made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mike Oliver seconded the motion. Meeting was adjourned at 8:20 p.m. The foregoing minutes of the July 3, 2012 Planning Commission meeting were approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting on the 71h day of August, 2012. Planning Commission Chair TREE REMOVAL 708 ISHERWOOD DRIVE ` Public Works Department Matt Samitore, Director CENTRAL 140 South 3` Street I Central Point, OR 97502 1 541.664.7602 1 www.centralpointoregon.gov POINT STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: August 7, 2012 Consideration of a Tree Removal Application to remove a Flowering Plum (Prunus cerasifera) located in the public right -of -way at 708 Isherwood Drive in the Low Mix Residential (LMR) Transit Oriented District (TOD). Applicant: Lana Grosenbach STAFF SOURCE: Dave Jacob, Recreation Coordinator Mark Brindle, ISA Arborist Parks Maintenance Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director BACKGROUND: Trees are regulated in accordance with Chapter 12.36, Trees; Chapter 17.67, Design Standards — TOD District and TOD Corridor; and Chapter 17.75, Design and Development Standards of the Central Point Municipal Code. Removal of trees planted in the public right -of -way or private property that directly affects public infrastructure or land use design requirements requires approval by the Planning Commission. The subject tree removal request is due to a concern that the Flowering Plum is in poor condition due to splitting limbs and roots growing on top of the grass and also due to nuisance caused by the dropping fruit. The tree is located in a landscape row in the public right -of -way in front of the applicant's property located at 708 Isherwood Drive. The land use zone designation is Low Mix Residential (LMR) in the Transit Oriented District (TOD). The Flowering Plum tree in question is approximately 20 -feet tall with a spread of 21 -feet. ISSUES: 000ftwomow.- Figure 1. Subject Tree Street trees are an important component of the City's street and storm drain system. In addition to extending the life of pavement, reducing stormwater runoff and improving water quality, trees add to the character and aesthetic of streetscapes throughout the City. Chapter 12.36 establishes the purpose to plant and maintain trees throughout the community to achieve these objectives and sets forth regulations regarding street tree planting and maintenance. Criteria for tree planting are emphasized throughout the land use regulations in Chapters 17.67 and 17.75. Tree removal within the public right -of -way is generally prohibited unless the following conditions exist: oil • The tree is unsafe, dead, or diseased as determined by a certified arborist. Verification of tree health may be required, at the expense of the applicant, by a certified arborist acceptable to the city; • The tree is in conflict with public improvements; or, • The proposed removal or pruning is part of an approved development project, a public improvement project where no alternative is available, or is part of a street tree improvement program. The subject tree was planted pursuant to the Cascade Meadows subdivision development approval that granted by the Planning Commission. The approval included the street tree planting plan that exists on the site today. The City's ISA Certified Arborist conducted an evaluation of the Flowering Plum tree at 708 Isherwood Drive and found that the tree is in good health and requires only minor maintenance. Furthermore, there are no existing conflicts with public improvements. Although there is a nuisance factor associated with the dropping of fruit, the request to remove the Flowering Plum tree does not meet the review criteria set forth in Section 12.36.050. Furthermore, removal and placement of the tree would impact the character of the subdivision, which is inconsistent with the original development approval, as well as the land use design and development standards set forth in Sections 17.67.050(K)(5) and 17.76.03. EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Application Attachment "B" —Tree Evaluation Form Attachment "C" — email report from City Arborist on subject tree condition ACTION: Discussion and decision by the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: Denial of the request to remove the Flowering Plum tree per the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012, which cites the following reasons: • The City's arborist examined the tree and found that it was healthy. The issues related to roots on top of the grass and split limbs are minor and would not warrant removal. • Concerning the nuisance issue related to the fruit on the tree, the city arborist surveyed the other flowering plum trees in the subdivision and found that all have fruit. The variety of tree was approved by the City in the review of the subdivision. Thus removal of one tree because of the nuisance issue cannot be justified. • The benefits of having healthy, large trees in the urban and streetscape environments should be maintained; • Removal and replacement of the tree with a different tree species would result in non- compliance with design standards for tree placement set forth in Sections 12.36.100(E), 17.67.050(K)(5), and 17.75.03. N 1 CENTRAL POINT City of Central Point Tree Removal Application ISite Address: ATTACHMENT it OFFICE USE ONLY L; Arborist Evaluation U Hazardous Tree Exemption F. Tree Board Review Documentation U. Attachments U Approved U Denied 0 Subject to COA Map and Tax Lot: Zoning District: Right -of -Way: Name: 1 _ Owner of Record: XYes ❑ No Street Ad" T6 Mailing Address: Phone: � .� ]�C l E -mail: �' r'` t!+ c vv1- Section 1: Basic Information Number of Trees to be removed: Reason for Removal: ❑ Hazardous (attach arborist report) View Obstruction ❑ Stream Obstruction , Other (please be specific): Section 2: Additional information •rv(�p �. -� (Complete additional pages if necessary. Attach a site plan and label each tree as provided below.) Tree #1 � Tree #3 Species: P u c _3 J 1—t vc-Yr Species: Diameter at Breast Height (inches): Diameter at Breast Height (inches): Height (feet): Height: Location (check all that apply): E) Front Yard 11 Side Yard Location (check all that apply): 0 Front Yard ❑ Side Yard Near Sidewalk or Street 0 Within 25 -ft of stream bank 0 Near Sidewalk or Street L Within 25 -ft of stream bank Tree to be replaced: Yes J No Tree to be replaced: L Yes U No Replacement Species: Replacement Species: Tree #2 Tree #4 Species: Species: Diameter at Breast Height (inches): Diameter at Breast Height (inches): Height: Height: Location (check all that apply): ❑ Front Yard IJ Side Yard Location (check all that apply): ❑ Front Yard I , Side Yard 0 Near Sidewalk or Street 11 Within 25 -ft of stream bank ❑ Near Sidewalk or Street 17 Within 25 -ft of stream bank Tree to be replaced: Ll Yes U No Tree to be replaced: L Yes 0 No Replacement Species: Replacement Species: By signing below, I agree to the terms and conditions of this permit and certify to the best of my knowledge the information contained in this application is complete, true and accp�ate. (PRINTED name) 3 NED name) ?11 Site /Address: Map /Location. ATTACHMENT 6i " - A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas TREE HAZA RD EVAL UATION FORM 2nd Edition Owner: p blic private __ unknown _ //�� II ,n, _. other Dater _L3 tom- Inspector: Rp` )3)c A,( . t.-sA A Date of last inspection: -r <<1, TREE Free #: DBH: HAZARD RATING: I +--A— +�__ Failure + Size + Target = Hazard Potential of part Rating Rating Immediate action needed Needs further inspection Dead tree Form: P generally symmetric minor asymmetry ❑ major asymmetry ❑ stump sprout ❑ stag - headed Crown class: ❑ dominant co- dominant ❑ intermediate ❑ suppressed Live crown ratlo: % Age class: Fl young A semi - mature La mature ❑ over - mature /senescent Pruning history: J crown cleaned ❑ excessively thinned ❑ topped ❑ crown raised LJ pollarded ❑ crown reduced ❑ flush cuts ❑ cabled /braced gI none ❑multiple pruning events Approx. dates: Special Value: [-1 specimen ❑ heritage/historic D wildlife F--unusual � street tree ❑ screen ❑ shade ❑ indigenous ❑ protected by gov. agency TREE HEALTH Foliage color. Pi normal ❑ chlorotic G necrotic Epicormics? Y N growth obstructions: Foliage density; "Anormal U sparse Leaf size: �t normal ❑ small Li stakes D wire!ties ❑ signs ❑ cables Annual shoot growth; A excellent :J average :._! poor Twig Biebaek? Y curb /paveme t a g ands truoundwood development: L! excellent !average poor LI none Ij�other S��eW�___��f� Vigor class: _J excellent 'A average L fair LJ poor Major pests /diseases: SITE CONDITIONS Site Character Aresidence LJ commercial V industrial L-; park '`3 open space U natural ❑ woodiandltorest Landscape type: parkway L raised bed J container C mound �( lawn ❑ shrub border ❑ wind break Irrigation: ❑ none N� adequate ❑ inadequate E excessive [ 1 trunk wettled Recent site disturbance? Y t0 F1 construction -1 soil disturbance !_ , grade change C7 line clearing ; I site clearing dripline paved: 0% 10 -25% V5-50-/ 50 75 °' 75 -100% Pavement lifted? Y % dripline w /till soil: 0% 10 -25°1° -75".6 75- 100% 11% dripline grade lowered: 0°' 10 -25% 50 -75°1,a 75- 100% Soil problems: 7 drainage F1 shallow 17� compacted [ -1 tiroughhy ❑ saline '�! alkaline acidic IA small volume 1:1 disease center ❑ history of fail -1 clay 1 oxpansive 1 slope aspect: Obstructions: i l lights L 1 signage i:7 line -ot- sight ❑ view ❑ overhead lines A underground utilities n traffic ❑ adjacent veg, ❑ Exposure to wind: %single tree ❑ below canopy Cl above canopy r7 recently exposed i l windward, canopy edge D area prone to windthrow Prevailing wind direction: tle—) 0ccurrence of snowAce storms ❑ never 'Oseldom ❑ regularly TARGET Use Under Tree: l 1 building �parklng [J traffic J�.; pedestrian L_' recreation I -1 landscape :�I hardscape C, small features ::.1 utility lines Can target be moved? Y Can use be restricted? Y V 4 Occupancy: P-110ccasional use intermittent use ❑frequent use I constant use The International Society of Arboriculture assumes no responsibility for conclusions or recommendations derived from use of this form. TREE AFFECTS -- - ROOT DFFECTS. Suspet:t root rot: Y ® Mushroom /conk @racket present: Y(_� ID: Exposed roots: i l severe C moderate `fin low Undermined: [- severe Ll moderate N low Root pruned:.—__ distance from trunk Root area affected: Buttress wounded: Y When: Restriclad root area: severe 1�0 moderate I !low Potential for root failure: J severe C moderate low SEAN; deg. from vertical ❑ natural C unnatural 7 self - corrected Soil heaving: Y 0 Decay in plane of lean: Y � oots broken Y 0 Soil cracking: Y C Compounding factors: swo-r Sti o- k- 0GA dAn _ Lean severity: F severe 1-1 moderate Xlow CROWN DEFECtS; Indicate presence of individual defects and rate their severity (s = severe, m = moderate, I = low) _DEFECT ROOT CROWN— TRUNK SCAFFOLDS BRANCHES Poor taper ,� [ _ B_ow, sweep Codominants /forks 1� Multi le attachments Included bark _ Excessive end weight Cracks/splits - �-- Hangers - - -� -� Girdling Wounds /seam Decay - - -- -- — - - - ^— �_ _, —_ Cavity — — -- - - - - -- -- Con ksimushrooms/bracket _ -� -- Bleeding!sap flow Loose /cracked bark Nestin hole/bee hive _ __ _ i - Deadwood /stubs Borers/termites/ants _ Gankersl ails /burls Previous failure HAZARD RATING Tree part most likely to fail: _ ]arQV'. Cpl K 2 Failure potential: 1 - low: 2 - medium; 3 - high; 4 - severe inspection period: ___ _ -_ _ -_ annual __M_, biannual other ��c° ✓+°�� Size of part: 1 . <G" (15 rrn): 2 - 6 -18" (15 -45 cm): Failure Potential + Size of Part i Target Rating = Hazard Rating 3 - 18-30" (45 -75 cm): 4 - >30" (75 cm) Target rating: 1 - occasional use; 2 intermittent use; _ __ .. -1 ___ + L_ ' __ _ _ 3 - frequent use; 4 - constant use HAZARD ABATEMENT Prune: !remove defective part CJ reduce end weight Ll crown clean thin C raise canopy -I crown reduce restructure ❑shape Cable/Brace; __ __ ______ tnspect further: G root crown [J decay aerial "_J monitor Remove tree: Y 6i Replace? Y� Move target: Y(5 Other: Effect an adiacent threes: ( none F, evaluate Kofification: owner manager Noverning agency Date: COMMENTS pyorr jV-4-jr- WA a� e-L 'V'A ArW AA j,y- vri-, P,1 ���� �.��� j,)%\k 4AjVQ,5 PfJo , (J Ptii V,1A4.,r x'13 (LA, L011(y Gprtn ATTACHMENT "C" From: Mark Brindle Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2012 3:51 PM To: Stephanie Holtey Cc: Jennifer Boardman Subject: RE: 708 Isherwood Tree Removal Application Stephanie, I went to 708 Isherwood today to take a look at and evaluate the Flowering Plum that Ms.Grosenbach has issues with. I looked around the tree to see if I could find any noticeable problems with the tree. There is minimal surface rooting that is just part of the planting process. I feel that the tree was planted improperly and has developed a surface root. That being said, it is of little concern for the health and vigor of the tree. It has already been wounded on the surface root quite some time ago by the way that the root is showing its scar. The issue with the two branches looks pretty straight forward, someone at one time hung on them and they split. These do show some healing scar tissue that indicates that these were also done a while ago. With these two branches, I would just prune off of the tree. With a little due- diligence on the part of the home owner, most of these problems will go away. Best times to prune these trees are in the early spring or after their fruiting season. There are many different sights on the web to show proper pruning techniques. If the home owner would like me to personally show how to prune this tree, I would be fine with it so long as my manager agrees to it. I would recommend not allowing this tree to be removed at this time for a couple of reasons. The first is that with a little maintenance the tree will be fine. The other reason is that what I saw on the street is that almost every one of the "street trees "is a Flowering Plum. I think if we start changing some of these trees, it will take away from the overall look of the street. It is a nice healthy tree. The pictures show the two different cracks in the branches, their location on the tree, the surface rooting and the overall look of the tree. I have done an ISA Tree Hazard Evaluation on this tree and will be giving you a copy. Any other questions or need any other photos, feel free to ask. Sincerely Mark Brindle, CPSI ISA Cert. Arborist Parks Maintenance Parks and Recreation City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Cell: 541 - 210 -7349 Fax: 541 -664 -4056 www.centralpointoregon.gov D EXTENSION & MlNOR MODIFICATION FORTH VILLAGE SUBDIVISION City of Central Point, Oregon 140 S 3rd Street, Central Point, OR 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.centralpointoregon.gov xcitY4 CENTRAL POINT Oregon STAFF REPORT August 7, 2012 AGENDA ITEM: File No. 05076 Community Development Tom Humphrey, AICP Community Development Director Consideration of a Minor Modification to the Tentative Map for the North Village Phases land 2, Twin Creeks TOD. The project site is located in the TOD -LMR, Low Mix Residential and TOD -OS, Open Space zoning districts and is identified on the Jackson County Assessor's map as 37 2W 03B, Tax Lots 1600, 1601,1602, 1800 and 37 2W 03C Tax Lots 100 and 102, Central Point, OR 97502. Applicant: Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC STAFF SOURCE: Don Burt, AICP, EDFP Planning Manager BACKGROUND: A tentative plan for North Village, Phases I and 2 was originally approved on September 6, 2005 as part of the Twin Creeks Master Plan (Resolution No. 667). The tentative plan was scheduled to expire on September 6, 2010. On August 20, 2010 the applicant submitted a written request to extend the North Village Phase 1 & 2 tentative plan. The August 20'x' extension request was granted, extending the tentative plan expiration date to September 6, 2011. On August 20, 2011 the applicant submitted another timely request for extension. Because of the pending changes in the City's Flood Hazard Area boundaries the applicant was notified on May 16, 2012 that the extension request was pending subject to approval of a Minor Modification to the Tentative Plan addressing: 1. Changes in phasing. Phase l has been slightly modified and Phase 2 has been divided into two phases, Phase 2 (50 Lots) and Phase 3 (25 Lots). Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the original tentative plan and the proposed modified tentative plan. 2. Compliance with Section 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. Section 16.10.100 requires all requests for land use application extensions to demonstrate compliance with any changes in the City's development codes since prior approval. In the case of the North Village tentative plan the only changes were to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (CPMC 8.24). The original tentative plan was approved based on earlier flood hazard snaps. Figure 1 illustrates the Project site Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) overlay in existence prior to 2011. Figure 2 illustrates the Project site's relationship to the new SFHA. As illustrated in Figure 2 the changes are significant, with most of the North Village tentative plan now subject to CPMC 8.24. Review of this request for a Minor Modification is limited to CPMC 8.24. Because of the flood hazard implication of the proposed modification it was determined that the application should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The applicant has stated in their findings that all requirements as outlined under CPMC 17.09.400, Minor Modifications, and CPMC 8.24 have been met. (Attachment `A') 7 ISSUES: There are two issues relative to this application: 1. CPMC 8.24, Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance. CPMC 8.24 modified the flood hazard area to now include most of the Project area (Figure 2). Table 1 identifies the number of lots now impacted by the new Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). Previously, none of the lots were impacted. Phase Lots in SFHA Lots in Flood Way Lots Outside of SFHA Total Lots I 42 38 0 80 11 37 0 13 50 III 25 0 0 25 Total Lots 104 38 13 155 % 67% 24% 8% 100% 2. Section 8.24 was also amended to include new development standards. Consequently, it is now necessary that the applicant demonstrate compliance with the standards for the development of lands within a SFHA. The most significant condition of the new regulations is the requirement for all subdivision proposals within a SFHA to obtain a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision ( CLOMR). This process can easily require six months to a year to complete, but is not necessary if the applicant can demonstrate that the proposed subdivision will not increase the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), or alter the Floodway or the SFHA boundaries. As a result the City is proposing an amendment removing the mandatory requirement, allowing applicants to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 8.24. Per the pending amendment if the applicant can demonstrate that the project does not impact the BFE. SFHA, or Floodway a CLOMR is not required. The recommended Conditions of Approval. pending amendment of Chapter 8.24, include language requiring the Applicant to submit supplemental engineered analysis for the City's review and approval prior to final plat approval. If the Applicant is unable to prove compliance with Chapter 8.24 the final plat will not be approved for Phases 2 and 3. Phase 1, as recommended, is not approved and is subject to submittal of a new application upon receipt of a CLOMR. Traffic, Hwy. 99/Railroad Crossing. When originally approved Twin Creeks TOD was responsible for the construction of the Twin Creeks Railroad Crossing improvements. The timing of the railroad crossing was based on the amount of traffic generated by each phase of development. Based on the amount of development approved to date, Twin Creeks TOD has sufficient traffic capacity to accommodate ' Includes both Phases 2 and 3 of the North Village Tentative Plan. Does not include Phase 1. Page 2 of 6 8 an estimated additional 180 single- family dwellings, or 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor areal before having to complete the railroad crossing. Based on past development the absorption rate for the available development could range from 2 — 10 years or more, depending on the economy. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. All conditions as originally approved in Resolution No. 667 remain in effect. 2. This tentative plan approval is for Phases 2 and 3only. Phase 1 is not approved. Upon receipt of a CLOMR for Phase 1 the applicant shall reapply for a tentative plan for Phase 1. 3. Prior to final plat approval for Phase 2 or Phase 3 the applicant shall either: a. Obtain a FEMA CLOMR, or pending amendment of CPMC 8.24; b. Demonstrate that the existing and anticipated future development will not adversely affect existing or anticipated future development, and will therefore not require a CLOMR. This shall be accomplished by: i. Providing a floodplain encroachment analysis certified by a registered professional engineer that identifies the cumulative impacts of the proposed subdivision, including fill and new development (finished pad elevations, utilities, streets, etc.) on the SFHA boundaries.. BFE, and regulatory floodway; ii. At time of submittal of the floodplain encroachment analysis evidence shall be provided demonstrating consistency of the floodplain encroachment analysis findings with the Twin Creeks Crossing and Floodway Mitigation CLOMR; iii. Submittal of an engineered grading plan; and iv. Demonstrating that all applicable federal and state permits have been obtained, including but not limited to Section 404 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the Endangered Species Act and Oregon Division of State Lands regulations. For either condition 3(a) or 3(b), the applicant shall be responsible for paying all costs incurred by the City to complete the review. Costs of review shall be paid prior to final plat approval. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment "A" — Applicant's Findings Actual square footage varies depending on type of commercial use. Page 3 of 6 601 Attachment "B" — Planning Department Supplemental Findings of Fact Attachment "C"— Letter Regarding Tentative Plan Extension Attachment "D" — Resolution ACTION: Consideration of Resolution No. xxx, North Village Tentative Plan as modified. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution No. xxx. Page 4 0'6 10 I SCENM AVE �F43t, AFPIEWC>DD DF � 1 . I L".9d 1982 Flood Hazard 100 -Year 1982 HR. 50— JM. FEW FIRA/ 410092 O IC, eNMive Awd t, 1982, 8 415589 04028. — ed Ja 19, 1981 ,d May 3, 2011 S "p - ,F % s 11 North Village Phase Development Twin Creeks 1982 Flood Hazard Page 5 of 6 Legend DIRM 2011 Flood Hazard Floodway FEMA FIRM 41029C 1768F. Community No 410092 Elfedve May 3. 2011 12 North Village Phase Development Twin Creeks Flood Hazard r//; Page 6 of 6 0" Legend DIRM 2011 Flood Hazard Floodway FEMA FIRM 41029C 1768F. Community No 410092 Elfedve May 3. 2011 12 North Village Phase Development Twin Creeks Flood Hazard r//; Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENT" A " FARBER S U R V E Y I N G FARBER & SONS, INC. * POST OFFICE BOX 5286 * CENTRAL POINT, OR 97502 * OFFICE • 431 OAK STREET * CENTRAL POINT s June 4, 2012 Community Development Department City of Central Point 140 South Third Street Central Point, OR 97502 Re; Application for minor modification of The North Village Phase I and II, City File No. 5076. 17.09.400 Minor modifications. A. Minor Modification. Any modification to a land use decision or approved development plan that is not within the description of a major modification as provided in Section 17.09.300(A). B. Minor Modification Review Procedure. An application for approval of a minor modification shall be reviewed by the planning official using a Type I or a Type II review procedure under Section 17.05.200 or 17.05.300. The community development director is responsible for determining the appropriate review procedure based on the following criteria: 1. Minor modifications that involve only clear and objective code standards may be reviewed using a Type I procedure; 2. Minor modifications that involve one or more discretionary standards shall be reviewed through Type II procedure; and 3. When the code is unclear on whether the application should be a Type I or Type II review, a Type II procedure shall be used. C. Minor Modification Applications. An application for minor modification shall include an application form, filing fee and narrative, and a site plan using the same plan format as in the original approval. The community development director may require other relevant information, as necessary, to evaluate the request. FINDING: THIS APPLICATION IS TO ADD A PHASE III TO THE APPROVED 2005 PLAN WHICH HAD TWO PHASES. THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE STANDARD SIZED HOME SITE LOTS IN THE TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT AND WITH THE CURRENT ECONOMIC CLIMATE IT IS NECESSARY TO BUILD A SMALLER PHASE THAN WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED. THE PLAN DOES NOT CHANGE THE DENSITY OF THE LOTS AS WE ARE DRAWING A NEW LINE FOR THE ADDED PHASE WITHIN THE NORTH VILLAGE PLAN. APPLICABLE EXTENSIONS OF TIME SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL HAVE BEEN OBTAINED. s HERBERT A. FARBER PRESIDENT / SURVEYOR * SUSAN M. FARBER BUSINESS MANAGER* PHONE: 541 -664 -5599 • FAX- 541- 664 -5603 Page I of 5 13 D. Minor Modification Approval Criteria. The community development director shall approve, deny, or approve with conditions an application for minor modification based on written findings that the modification is in compliance with all applicable requirements of the development code and conditions of approval on the original decision, and the modification is not a major modification as described in Section 17.09.300(A). (Ord. 1874 §2(part), 2006). FINDING: THIS IS A MINOR CHANGE BECAUSE THERE IS NO CHANGE TO LOT LAYOUT, STREET LOCATIONS AND THEREFORE TO THE DENSITY AND OTHER CRITICAL DESIGN FACTORS APPROVED IN 2005. PHASE I CONSTRUCTION HAD BEGUN PRIOR TO THE ECONOMIC DECLINE. AN EFFORT WAS MADE TO CAPITALIZE ON UTILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND BY HAVING LOTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREETS TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN PHASE III TO PAY FOR THE STREET CONSTRUCTION. THIS PLAN ALLOWS FOR ADEQUATE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IN THIS ADDITION. THE LOCATION OF PHASE III IN THE NORTH VILLAGE IS NOT WITHIN THE REGULATORY FLOODWAY WHICH IS DISCUSSED FURTHER BELOW. PHASE III WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH FEMA REGULATIONS. Chapter 8.24 FLOOD DAMAGE PREVENTION Sections: 8.24.010 THROUGH 8.24.160 Finding: THESE ARE ADMINISTRATIVE OR DO NOT APPLY TO THIS REQUEST TO ADD A PHASE TO THIS SUBDIVISION. 8.24.170 Requirement to submit new technical data. Finding: (THE CLOMR AND TECHNICAL DATA REQUIRED UNDER THIS SECTION IS BEING PREPARED BY NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS, INC.) 8.24.180 Nonconversion of enclosed areas below the lowest floor. Finding: (NOT APPLICABLE AT THIS TIME) 8.24.190 Site improvements and subdivisions. A. All proposed new development and subdivisions shall be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage and ensure that the building sites will be reasonably safe from flooding as set forth in Section 8.24.050. The test of reasonableness is a local judgment and shall be based on historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding, etc. Page 2 of 5 14 Finding: AGREED B. Building lots shall have adequate buildable area outside of the regulatory floodway and the special stream setback set forth in Section 8.24.230, which shall be preserved as an open space by easement. Finding: ALL PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROPOSED PHASE III IS OUT SIDE OF THE FLOODWAY. C. New development proposals and subdivision development plans, including tentative plat and approved engineered drawings and as- builts, shall include the mapped flood hazard zones from the effective FIRM, including the regulatory floodway, if applicable, and estimated BFEs at each parcel. Finding: THIS IS A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING PLAN THAT WAS ENGINEERED STARTING IN 2005 FOLLOWING THE TENTATIVE PLAN APPROVAL WITH SOME CONSTRUCTION BEGINNING IN 2007. THE PRESENT GRADING PLAN ADJUSTED TO THE NAVD 88 VERTICAL DATUM WILL HAVE HASKELL STREET ABOVE THE BFE ESTABLISHED WITH THE EFFECTIVE MAPS ON MAY 3, 2011. HASKELL STREET IS DESIGN TO BE THE HIGH GRADE WITH STORM WATER FLOWING TO BIOSWALE TREATMENT FACILITIES ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE NORTH VILLAGE. NOTE THAT THE EXISTING GROUND IS PRESENTLY NO MORE THAN A FOOT BELOW THE ESTAtBLISHED BFE. (GRADING WORKSHEET ATTACHED) D. Subdivisions shall be created and designed to minimize risk of damage to property and potential loss of life from flooding, and minimize the disturbance of floodplain riparian zones by locating infrastructure and lots outside the SFHA and preserving as open space by easement. When a subdivision proposal includes improvements that encroach into the SFHA, the applicant shall demonstrate that adverse impacts to existing and anticipated future development, in the form of increased flood elevations, flood velocity, floodplain extent and floodway extent, are avoided or mitigated by providing the following information: 1. Engineered grading plan. Finding: PENDING APPROVAL OF THIS MODIFICATION APPLICATION THE CURRENT ENGINEERING WILL BE MODIFIED TO CONFORM TO THE NEW PHASE LINES. 2. Floodplain encroachment analysis certified by a registered professional civil engineer that identifies the cumulative impacts of the proposed encroachments, including fill and new construction, on the flooding source (i.e., stream) and all associated insurable structures, on the SFHA boundaries, BFE, and regulatory floodway, if applicable. 3. CLO.MR from FEMA. Page 3 of 5 15 Finding: PENDING COMPLETION BY NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS INC. E. Where BFE data has not been provided or is not available from another authorized source, the applicant shall provide a hydrologic and hydraulic engineering analysis that generates BFEs for all subdivision proposals and other proposed developments, at least one acre or four lots in size (whichever is less). F. New development and subdivisions shall have public utilities and facilities such as sewer, gas, electric and water systems located and constructed to minimize flood damage. G. On -site waste disposal systems shall be prohibited. H. Subdivisions and manufactured home parks shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood hazards as provided in Section 8.24.240, In AO and AH zones, drainage paths shall be provided to guide floodwater around and away from all proposed and existing structures. (Ord. 1947 § l (part), 2011). Finding: THIS IS A MODIFICATION OF AN EXISTING PLAN. THE SUBDIVISION WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO COMPLY WITH ALL OF CITY, STATE AND FEDERAL REGULATIONS THE SAME AS ALL DEVELOPMENT WORK. 8.24.200 Development in regulatory floodways. Finding: NO DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE FLOODWAY AS A RESULT OF THIS MODIFICATION. THE REMAINDER OF THIS PROJECT DEVELOPMENT WILL FOLLOW THE CLOMR APPROVAL PROCESS. 8.24.210 THROUGH 8.24.230 Finding: NOT APPLICABLE DELETED 8.24.240 Drainage provisions. Finding: THIS SECTION REQUIRES DETAILS REGARDING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND WILL BE ADDRESSED AS NEEDED WITH THE ENGINEERING PLAN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 8.24.250 Floodplain development standards for construction. Finding: THIS SECTION REQUIRES DETAILS REGARDING BUILDING CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND WILL BE ADDRESSED AS NEEDED WITH THE ENGINEERING PLAN OR BUILDING PLANS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 8.24.260 THROUGH 8.24.300 Finding: ARE ADMINISTRATIVE. SUMMARY: IN 2005 AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL FOR THE NORTH VILLAGE THIS AREA WAS NOT IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA. WITH THE FEMA MAPPING EFFECTIVE ON MAY 3, 2011 MOST OF THE NORTH VILLAGE IS WITHIN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA WITH A REGULATORY FLOODWAY. PHASE III WILL CONSIST OF 6 LOTS FROM PHASE I AND 17 LOTS PLUS THE Page 4 of 5 16 PARK FROM PHASE II. ALL BUT THREE OF THE LOTS ARE IN THE FLOOD HAZARD AE ZONE AS ILLUSTRATED ON THE MAP ACCOMPANYING THIS APPLICATION. THE CLOMR AND TECHNICAL DATA REQUIRED UNDER CHAPTER 8.24.170 IS BEING PREPARED BY NORTHWEST HYDRAULIC CONSULTANTS, INC. THE CLOMR WILL DEMONSTRATE OUR EFFORTS TO MITIGATE FOR THE FLOOD HAZARD AREA AND THE FLOODWAY. THE PROPOSED PHASE III IS DRAWN SO THAT WE ARE NOT WITHIN THE CURRENTLY MAPPED REGULATORY FLOODWAY. IT IS EXPECTED THAT SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS INCLUDING THE FLOODWAY WILL BE MODIFIED BY THE MITIGATION EFFORTS. IF THE MITIGATION PROVES TO NOT MEET OUR EXPECTATIONS THEN THE REMAINING AREA OF PHASE I MAY REQUIRE SOME DESIGN MODIFICATIONS. THIS ISSUE WILL BE ADDRESSED FURTHER AS THE FLOOD ISSUES HAVE MORE CLARITY. THE MODIFICATION OF THE PHASE BOUNDARY AND EVENTUAL CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE III AREA WILL NOT PROHIBIT, IF NEEDED, A FUTURE RE- DESIGN OF THE LAYOUT IN PHASE I. TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT UNDERSTANDS THESE FACTS AND ACCEPTS RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE RESULTS OF THIS POTENTIAL SITUATION. TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC HAS BEEN WORKING IN A SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA THOUGH OUT THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDINGS WILL BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS AS DEFINED IN CHAPTER 5.24 OF THE CENTRAL POINT MUNICIPAL CODE. A FINAL NOTE; THE WORST CASE SCENARIO WITH THE IMPACTS RESULTING IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE IH WOULD BE ON TWIN CREEKS DEVELOPMENT CO., LLC LANDS. SHOULD THE BITE RISE MORE THAT THE MODEL WOULD INDICATE IT WILL LIE BETWEEN HASKELL STREET AND THE RAILROAD WITH THE RAILROAD PROTECTING THE LANDS TO THE EAST FROM ANY IMPACT. THE ONLY PUBLIC IMPACTED BY THIS APPROVAL AND DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THE OWNERS OF THE PROJECT. WE REQUEST APPROVAL OF THIS MINOR MODIFICATION. Respectfully, ?Z/� _7___ Herbert A Farber CC: Twin Creeks Development Co., LLC. Via email. Page 5 of 5 17 I V A4 "eel ,.eel q ATTACHMENT it it SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS OF FACT FOR AN EXTENSION AND MINOR MODIFICATION OF NORTH VILLAGE TENTATIVE PLAN, PHASES 1 AND 2 INTRODUCTION Before the City of Central Point Planning Commission consideration of an Extension and Minor Modification of the tentative plan for North Village, Phases 1 and 2 (File No. 05076). Applicant: Twin Creeks Development Company, LLC P.O. Box 3577 Central Point, Oregon 97502 ) Findings of Fact and Conclusion of Law These findings are supplemental to the Applicant's findings (Attachment "A" of the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012) and address both the request for an extension of, and minor modification of the tentative plan for the North Village subdivision. Tentative Plan Extension Finding: The North Village tentative plan has an expiration date of September 6, 2011. On August 30, 2011 the Applicant's representative submitted a timely request for an extension of the tentative plan to September 6, 2012. Requests for extension of tentative plans are subject to the provisions of CPMC 16. 10.100 Extension. As set forth in Section 16.10.100(A) tentative plans may be extended by the community development director for a period of one year. There is no prohibition on the number of times a tentative plan may be extended provided that it is demonstrated that the tentative plan remains compliant with current code or comprehensive plan provisions. If code or comprehensive plan changes affect the tentative plan then a request for extension may be denied', or at the discretion of the community development director re- reviewed per 17.09.3002. On March 24, 2011 (Ordinance 1947) the City updated its Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (CPMC 8.24) to include new FEMA maps and regulations. Prior to the adoption of CPMC 8.24 the North Village tentative plan was not within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), and therefore not subject to CPMC 8.24. With adoption of CPMC 8.24 the North Village tentative plat was now within a SFHA and subject to the provisions of CPMC 8.24. On May 16, 2012 the Community Development Director notified the Applicant that an extension of the tentative plan would be considered only under re- review per 17.09.300 as a modification to the previously approved tentative plan. The purpose of the re- review was to address compliance with CPMC 8.24. It was further ' Section 16.10.100(A)(2)(a) 2 Section 16.10.100(A)(2)(b) 1 — Planning Department File No. 13001 Shepherd of the Valley LUCS Findings 19 the determination of the Community Development Director that the decision on the modification be presented to the Planning Commission as a Type I1I, Minor Amendment application, which in effect was procedurally the same as a Major Amendment. On June 01, 2012 the Applicant submitted an application for a Minor Amendment, with the understanding that it will be processed as a Type III application, Major Amendment. Conclusion: The request for an extension is timely and therefore meets the requirements of Section 16.10.100(B) and may be extended subject to approval of the Minor Modification request. FLOOD DAMAGE PROTECTION ORDINANCE (8.24) Finding, CPMC 8.24.175(4): As of March 24, 2011 the North Village tentative plan, now being located within a SFHA was subject to the newly adopted regulation of CPMC 8.24. To assure that new subdivision is compliant with the updated flood protection regulations Section 8.24.175(4) required that all new subdivision proposals within a SFHA shall obtain a FEMA Conditional Letter of Map Revision ( CLOMR) prior to approval. Upon re- review the tentative plan has been conditioned to require a FEMA CLOMR prior to final plat approval. As a result of the North Village tentative plan re- review it was determined by the City that the mandatory requirement for a FEMA CLOMR for all subdivisions within a SFHS was not necessary provided that the applicant could demonstrate, through appropriate engineered studies that the subdivision as proposed will not alter the SFHA boundaries, Base Flood Elevation, or any regulatory floodway. Recognizing this option the City is processing amendments to SPMC 8.24 allowing, at the applicant's discretion, and subject to the City's approval, an engineered analysis as an option to a CLOMR. Because Phase 1 (modified) is dominated by a Floodway it has been determined that until a FEMA CLOMR is approved that this phase not be extended, but shall be subject to re- application at a later dated pending the outcome of a FEMA CLOMR. Phases 2 and 3 (modified) are only within the SFHA and are subject to less restrictive development requirements and as such can proceed as conditioned in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012, Conclusion: As conditioned in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012 the modified tentative plan for North Village, Phases 2 and 3 are compliant with CPMC 8.24 as it currently exists, or as may be amended per above. Phase 1 is not approved at this time. NORTH VILLAGE PHASING Finding: The currently approved North Village is proposed to be developed in two phases. As part of the modification request the Applicant is requesting that the phasing be modified to include a third phase. The re- phasing also includes some minor adjustment in the limits of Phase 1. As previously noted Phase 1 is significantly impacted by the presence of a Floodway, requiring the completion of a FEMA CLOMR. Because of the Floodway Phase 1 extension is not approved, and subject to re- application pending approval of a FEMA CLOMR. SUMMARY FINDING The proposed modification is consistent with CPMC 8.24 subject to the conditions as stated in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012. Subject to approval of the modification application, and compliance with all conditions applicable thereto, the North Village tentative plan may be extended. 2 — Planning Department File No. 13001 Shepherd of the Valley LUCS Findings 20 City of Central Point, Oregon 140 So-Third St., Central Point, Or 97502 541.664.3321 Fax 541.664.6384 www.ci.central- point.or.us May 16, 2012 Herb Farber P.O. Box 5286 Central Point, OR 97502 9 CENTRAL POINT ATTACHMENT " C Planning Department Tom Humphrey,AICP, Community Development Director/ Assistant City Administrator RE: Request for Extension of the North Village Phase I & lI Tentative Plat, Twin Creeks TOD, File No. 05076 Dear Herb: On August 20, 2010 and again on August 20, 2011 you submitted written requests to extend the Tentative Plat for North Village at Twin Creeks (Phase I & 11) for one (1) year in each case. As originally approved, the North Village tentative plat was scheduled to expire on September 6, 2010 therefore; your requests for extension are considered timely. However, as you are aware, our consideration of the tentative plat extensions have been complicated by both City code limitations and new Flood Insurance Rate Maps ( FIRMs) that affect development in Twin Creeks. The new FIRMS affect the Twin Creeks TOD master plan and more specifically, Phase I of the North Village tentative plat. In a letter dated May 14, 2012 a conditional extension of the Twin Creeks TOD master plan was approved, which paved the way for reconsideration of the North Village tentative plat. Based on the extended Twin Creeks TOD master plan, the City is prepared to grant your two prior extension requests to September 6, 2013 subject to the following two (2) conditions: 1. Submit as a Minor Modification an amended Tentative Plat (File No. 05076) to redefine the proposed pleasing and also note that Phase I is reserved subject to »todiftcatton of the Master Plan as noted in the City's Master Plan extension dated May 14, 2012; and 2, Provide findings as part of the minor niodi fication that all phases, other than Phase I, are compliant with the new FIRM and Municipal Code Section 8,24, If you have any questions regarding this correspondence, you are welcome to call me at 541- 423 -1025. tphrey AICP Community Development Director 21 ATTACHMENT " -b 9$ PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL OF AN EXTENSION AND MINOR MODIFICATION TO THE NORTH VILLAGE TENTATIVE PLAN PHASES 1 & 2 A RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION FILE NO. 05076 WHEREAS, Twin Creeks Development Company, LLC (Applicant) has submitted an application for an Extension of, and Minor Amendment to, the Tentative Plan for North Village, Phases 1 and 2, a residential subdivision identified on Jackson County Assessor's map as 37S 37 2W 0313, Tax Lots 1600, 1601, 1602, 1800 and 37 2W 03C Tax Lots 100 and 102, in the City of Central Point, Oregon; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2005 (Planning Commission Resolution No. 667) a tentative plan was approved for North Village Phases 1 and 2 subject to conditions as set forth in the Staff Report dated September 6, 2005; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has submitted a timely request to extend the approved Tentative Plan for North Village, Phases 1 and 2; and WHEREAS, subsequent to approval of the Tentative Plan the City has adopted a new Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (CPMC 8.24) the standards of which are now applicable to the North Village Tentative Plan; and WHEREAS, Section 16.10.100 allows for the re- review of a tentative plan per Section 17.09.300 when there have been changes in the code or comprehensive plan that apply to the tentative plan; and WHEREAS, on May 16, 2012 the Community Development Director notified the Applicant that any extension of the Tentative Plan would be subject to a Modification per Section 17.09.300; and WHEREAS, on August 6, 2012, at a duly noticed public hearing, the City of Central Point Planning Commission re- reviewed, as a Type III application, an Extension and Minor Modification to the North Village Tentative Plan as provided for in Section 16.10.100 and 17.09.300; and WHEREAS, after duly considering the Applicants' request, it is the Planning Commission's determination that the application, as conditioned in the Staff Report dated August 7, 2012 (Exhibit "A "), complies with the applicable standards and criteria; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the City of Central Point, Oregon, by this Resolution No. does hereby approve the request for a Minor Modification for the North Village Tentative Plan based on the findings and conditions of approval as set forth the Planning Department Staff Report dated August 7, 2012 including Attachments "A" through "C"; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Planning Commission for the City of Central Point, Oregon, hereby approves the Extension of the North Village Tentative plan and resets the approval date of the modified North Village Tentative Plan to August 7, 2012, with an expiration date of August 7, 2013. PASSED by the Planning Commission and signed by me in authentication of its passage this 7th day of August, 2012. ATTEST: City Representative Planning Commission Chair Approved by me this 7"' day of August 2012 9 2 Planning Commission Chair ti Planning Commission Resolution No. (08/07/2012)